User talk:Nlu/archive4

Quick question

"He" or "she"? I'd rather not guess wrong for your nomination. ;-) android 79 14:25, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Android79 would like to nominate you to be an administrator. Please visit Wikipedia:Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then contact Android79 to accept or decline the nomination. A page has been created for your nomination at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Nlu/archive4. If you accept the nomination, you must formally state your acceptance and answer the questions on that page. Once you have answered the questions, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so.

Okay, I went with "he". If I've assumed incorrectly, feel free to change it yourself... android 79 15:10, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it looks like android beat me to it. I'll just support your nom I guess. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GregAsche (talk • contribs)

Just co-nominated u ;) --JAranda | watz sup 02:13, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chibi or Red Cliffs?

Hi, i noticed your current amendments of an anon edit to Cao Cao, and i just come to wonder if "Chibi" or "Red Cliffs" is actually "better". My personal preference would be "Red Cliffs" since A. 赤壁 is not exactly a geographical location (as in a city or town and such), and therefore does not have to conform to the naming convention; and B. "Red Cliffs" would better capture the essence of the Chinese term than "Chibi". Incidentally, Google search returned 56,600 items for "Red Cliffs" and only 931 for "Chibi". What do you think? --Plastictv 18:03, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I can see your point, and while I respectfully disagree, I'll yield to what you decide here. I do believe still that Chibi is still a proper geographical place -- there are multiple places named Chibi, for sure (thus leading to the dispute as to where the battle happened), but that doesn't per se make it generic. --Nlu 23:10, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aircraft of the RoC Air Force

Hi- It looks like you are an authority on the Republic of China. I am particularily interested in military aircraft. I have been trying to find some information to start articles on some aircraft of the Republic of China Air Force that are red-linked. Especially the following:

AT-3 (jet trainer)
E-2T (Early Warning/Electronic Warfare)
BH-1900 (transport)

I was wondering if you knew of some sources that I haven't yet found. Thanks --Rogerd 02:37, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, military-related items happen to be an area that's really out of my area of expertise. I did look a bit at the Ministry of National Defense Web site (http://www.mnd.gov.tw), and what I am able to find as to the E2T is on http://air.mnd.gov.tw/Publication.aspx?CurrentNodeID=963&Level=3&PublicID=339 but is in Chinese. There's less about the AT-3 and BH-1900, both on http://air.mnd.gov.tw/Publication.aspx?CurrentNodeID=958&Level=3&PublicID=337. I can't find anything else on them. --Nlu 04:46, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, using your links, I was able to poke around and found this in english. I was able to determine that the "E-2T" is just a version of the Grumman E-2 Hawkeye also used by the United States Navy. I also found out the BH-1900 is just a military version of the Beechcraft 1900 civilian plane. The AT-3 is an aircraft built in the ROC, so info in it is a little more scarce. Thanks again for pointing me in the right direction. --Rogerd 05:52, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We are the Borg ...

Greetings! I hope you're well; thanks for fixing 'comparisons' to Islam in the Borg article. Whe you get a few lengthy moments, and if you are so inclined, would you be able to peruse the article and comment/make editions? I've tried to enhance the article (through text and pictures), but still have work to do (e.g., fleshing out, if at all, the Borg/VGer supposition etc.). Merci! E Pluribus Anthony 19:39, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kindness. I'll try, but I've done so before and pretty much gave up because it's not badly written as it is and it's difficult to untangle the "nestedness" of the article. What I think it doesn't need is additional information -- there's probably too much information as it stands already. --Nlu 19:42, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Thank you, as well, for your attention to it; no problem. I, too, think it is written well and (for example) some of the talk of assimilation could perhaps be moved to its own article, but all of it is rather nested. Thanks again!

Perhaps on a similar note, would you care to weigh in on this request for comment? A lengthy discussion immediately precedes it, and I hope I'm not being overly zealous (and can empathise with the 'antagonist's position), but I feel he may be acting improperly by not citing his argument directly and hope I'm not acting erroneously by doing otherwise. I think it needs a neutral perspective. Thanks! E Pluribus Anthony 19:50, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this RfC is properly formatted, and therefore will be at some point deleted. In any case, though, I must say that I am not sufficiently familiar with the Terminator franchise (other than its current, awful, awful reincarnation in Sacramento) to comment on it. --Nlu 19:53, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Even given your unfamiliarity with the topic, how would you suggest this RfC be formatted? I've tried to summarise the germane elements, and may be lengthy as a result, while being clear; there are numerous intertwined issues to resolve there. And, so far, one other 'neutral' user has commented. Thoughts are invited. E Pluribus Anthony 20:01, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, after looking at some other media-related RfCs, the RfC doesn't look wrong, although I am still not sure what it's aiming toward. --Nlu 20:06, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback: consider it an omnibus RfC. The Terminator has been referred to as a "cyborg" (itself a dubious definition) and robot in various media; these have been incorporated into the article, with a note. The antagonist has long contended that the Terminator(s) are not at all cyborgs but only droids or androids, and he has not substantiated this directly (he has referred to dictionary definitions, but nothing stating that the T is not a cyborg by any definition). I've asked him repeatedly for this; to no avail (they do exist, though). As well, he keeps removing references that indicate otherwise or occasionally throws in questionable analogies/text (e.g., to a medieval knight). I do not admit being a paragon of editing throughout, but I've cited my sources while he has not. I want this resolved in any event, without debating it in futility. Make sense? E Pluribus Anthony 20:13, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All right, understood. I'll think about it a bit more sometime. --Nlu 20:14, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Great; merci! E Pluribus Anthony 20:16, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! In case you're interested: other users have actively commented and I believe we have achieved a consensus regarding the cyborg RfC. While the antagonist has not commented recently, he will be hard-pressed to disagree and I think there's enough agreement to move forward anyway. In any event, thanks for your attention to this issue. E Pluribus Anthony 06:46, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, and sorry about my lack of participation there. I simply don't know the subject of the Terminator enough (other than that I wish that we can terminate him next year). :-) --Nlu 06:51, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Understood; while I've never been to Sacramento, there are a few bipeds in "Hogtown" I'd like to perhaps expunge, physical and moral laws notwithstanding ... he he. Hasta la vista, baby! :) E Pluribus Anthony 06:56, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Weird editing errors

It's funny you should mention it, since I've been having a lot of problems editing in the last few minutes. My rollback seems to be broken, for example [1]. I don't know what's up. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 05:25, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, is there anyone we can ask to look into coding errors and/or database lock? --Nlu 05:28, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Starling says the problem should be fixed now. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 05:34, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think?

Hi Nlu, I just saw that your intrested in baseball, and I want your opinion on an article. Will White, I'm just wondering if you think it's notable enough to stay. His only real claim to fame is that he started 75 games in a single season once. Anyway let me know what you think. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk. 06:07, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine. It is my opinion that any major leaguer is sufficiently notable. :-) (In fact, there are lots of baseball bios on Wikipedia that are far less notable than White.) Just wikify and add categories and the article will be fine. --Nlu 06:48, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I spelt it wrong. I would've fixed it, but then I decided she was probably borderline notable and just nominated the others in the group. Ambi 11:06, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

Thanks for the barnstar. I'm not used to ostentatious display of awards, though, so it shall remain in my talk page unless you move it to my user page. :-) DHN 03:53, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Done. :-) --Nlu 03:58, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Georgie W. Bush vandalism reverts

I thank you for keeping a vigilant eye on the reverts of the George W. Bush article, and realize how extremely boring it is to type "reverting vandalism by ____ to last version by ___" or similar, but make sure your humor isn't taken as an attack on GWB or his family in the future (a lot of editors here get kinda picky about this). Thanks for reverting the vandalism, and thanks for the humor, just watch your back (some users will use anything to get at you). Keep up the good work! -M y s e k u r i t y 05:57, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. :-) --Nlu 05:59, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Need Talk Page examined. Looks like a paint truck hit it, some syntax messed up...

I'm reporting that my user Talk page has been appearantly vandalised !!!!! Will contact a Admin. in accordance w/ proccedure.Martial Law 22:32, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just found out that a STILL ongoing malfunction has messed up Wikipedia. Now it is making access nearly impossible. You will get vandal reports from those unaware of this malfunction. It is some kind of FATAL malfunction that started in HTML Tidy.Martial Law 01:14, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that Wikipedia has a fatal cascading malfunction. Now I can't access anything @ this time, if I can still access anything, I'll patrol the pages.Martial Law 01:21, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There are some problems going on, but I don't think it's vandalism. Hopefully someone will fix things soon. --Nlu 02:37, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So far, the damage appears to be contained. WHAT is the HTML Tidy program supposed to do ?Martial Law 05:07, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You and your entire CVU will have reports of vandalisim comming in from users unaware of this nearly catastophic malfunction. Thought I might let you know. When I saw my user page, I thought I got hit, and started looking around for evidence. That is how I found out about this malfunction. Maybe the other malfunctions can also get fixed, such as "Operation Timed out.", and "Contact REFUSED" on "en.wikipedia.org".Martial Law 05:12, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am, unfortunately, clueless about Wikipedia's coding. :-) :-( Perhaps you can suggest this on Wikipedia talk:Counter Vandalism Unit? --Nlu 05:47, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So far, the problem has been resolved. I have cast my vote to have you nominated to be a Admin. Martial Law 08:25, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It was a technical malfunction in which this site had crashed. NO Vandalisim involved.Martial Law 08:33, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Found a appearant malfunction on Android79's support commentary.Martial Law 08:33, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. (For the update and the support.) --Nlu 08:38, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just notified the CVU about the malfunction.Martial Law 08:44, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Are comments permitted on the Admin. nomination page ? How does one give awards ?Martial Law 08:50, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think comments are allowed on the admin nomination pages (in fact, I think there is a section for comments), and as you might have noticed, a lot of people have short comments in their support remarks. To give an award, take a look at Wikipedia:Barnstar. --Nlu 08:52, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mary See

I mainly reverted because the sentence beginning "The sparkling clean..." appeared lifted from the Ses's website, and, um, thinking clouded by drowsiness. :) tregoweth 00:28, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's the state I was in for a few days recently after coming back from a trip. :-) Thanks for the explanation. --Nlu 00:29, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can't access my talk page. Am I blocked, or is this a glitch...

Am I blocked or is this a glitch ? I cannot access my talk page .Martial Law 05:04, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Must be a glitch. I have no problem doing it, and I don't see you as being blocked. (Blocking means blocking from editing, anyway, not from viewing.) --Nlu 05:12, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Could be a side effect of the HTML Tidy malfunction, or yet another malfunction. Appreciate the assisstance.Martial Law 06:45, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Will White

Sorry to take so long to replie. Thanks for the compliment on the article. I'm sad to admit I am ignorant on how to add categories, or what categories to even add for that matter. I'll wikify the article more, but I'll need you to kindly explain to me how to add categories to articles. Your help is always appreciated. BTW since your RfA looks like its going to pass hands down let me say my congrats now :-D. Just updated vote count your up 2 more lol. One more thing do you know much about merging articles? If you do would you kindly have a look at Montgomery Improvement Association and see if you think it makes sense to merge it with Montgomery Bus Boycott.(see Montgomery Bus Boycott talk page for my opinion on the matter please) Again thank you so much for your time. Happy editing. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk. 07:46, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To add categories, you simply add [[Category:<whatever>]] at the bottom of the article. Where it's appropriate for sorting purposes (and it does in this case -- since you want to sort by last name first) put the string that you'd want to use for category sorting after a | mark. (Actually, anywhere in the article will work, but it is good practice to put them at the very end, before only the interwiki links if any exists.) It takes a while to get the hang of what categories might be out there -- this is one that you'd just have to pay attention when you read the other articles to get a sense of what might be there, I think. I can't claim to be an expert on this, as I myself am still trying to learn this. In Will White's case, adding categories for birth year and death year would be a bare minimum, I think, as well as the categories for the teams he played for and his position. I'm going to add the categories to the article; you can take a look at how I did it.

As for merging, this is something that I'm also still trying to learn. I think it's basically a gut-feeling thing -- does this thing have a separate context of its own that it should be its own article or should it be part of one article? (One other factor to take in account is whether the main article is already too long.) I've taken a look at Montgomery Improvement Association. My opinion is that it should stay separate, but my opinion on this is not a strong one.

Thanks for your encouragement. --Nlu 08:02, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

National Merit

Thanks. I will now go decorate my page.--Jiang 08:25, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Admin - I Think Not!

If you so freely suggest that pages should be deleted(Tim McGowan)without checking the facts of the page and just putting it down to "vanity" you certainly don't deserve to be Admin. Do a proper search of this artist before making a judgment call, you may learn something new and discover new music you will like. Just because you haven't heard of him doesn't mean that everyone else outside your small world hasn't either! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.218.167.77 (talk • contribs)

That's fine. You're free to oppose my adminship -- but please do sign your comments. But the key issue isn't whether Mr. McGowan is notable; the key issue is whether notability has been asserted and shown. Neither is/was true. --Nlu 04:17, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, I just looked and I don't see my editing that page at all. I think you're mistaken. (That doesn't mean that that page shouldn't be deleted -- just meant that I had no hand in it.) --Nlu 05:30, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

GMA Films

Sorry about that, I made that revert while checking out the recent changes, it looked like mere vandalism. --anetode ╔╝ 09:36, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I see. When I am RC patrolling and see deletions of material without an edit summary to explain it, and the reason isn't really really obvious (such as the words removed being profanity or gibberish), I usually assume that there is no good reason for deleting those passages and that it should be speedily reverted. It is true 90% of the time or more... Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:36, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism warnings on talk pages

Hi, Nlu. Just had a comment on your use of {{test}} tags on talk pages. Does it really make sense to give three warnings to a user on a page where I already warned them after all the vandalism was caused (hours ago), and they haven't vandalized those pages since? It doesn't make much sense to me to warn a user multiple times without giving them a chance to change their behavior. Do you know if this is the consensus for warning policy? If so, I stand corrected, but it seems odd to me. Thanks for your comments. —Cleared as filed. 21:05, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I actually don't know of any policy on this. What I wanted to make sure is that this is a case of multiple vandalism, rather than single instance vandalism. --Nlu 21:06, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

True, but I think the more destructive behavior is the user who continues to vandalize even after being warned. After all, if the user had vandalized, say, 6 pages instead of 3, all before receiving any warnings, would we have given warnings 1-5 and gone right to a block? Of course, I would have less patience for a user who continued to vandalize multiple pages after being warned at least once. I see your point — I wonder what the policy is. Thanks for the response! —Cleared as filed. 21:27, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Admin. - I think so

Why should'nt you be a Admin. ? You handled one of the worst computer malfunctions I've ever seen. That thing has taken down this site, has caused false vandalisation reports. How you and your people handled the HTML Tidy should qualify you to be a Admin.Martial Law 21:42, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, I didn't. I just sat around and did nothing (and had a cup of coffee...) :-) Whoever did the coding, I don't know, but it wasn't me. --Nlu 21:44, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi & Thank You

Just want to say Hi and Thank You in return for leaving a message welcoming me at my page.--AmosNider 08:26, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. Thanks. --Nlu 08:28, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]